Here is the situation: on bridge construction projects several engineering firms around here are requiring, in the project specifications, that a LLS verify published control prior to construction, as well as verification of the location of forms for footings and abutments as it gets built prior to pouring concrete. Since the firm I work for designs a lot of small bridges and does other structural work for a few of the firms who build these bridges, I have a good relationship with the contractors and frequently get asked to do the work. Now many times the survey for the existing conditions was done long ago and most of the control is gone and we deal with that through the design engineer and their surveyor (the firms requiring the item don't do their own surveying, it is subbed out). I am working on a project where I actually was able to recover the published horizontal & vertical control. There were four published horizontal points, two on each side of the river. I found them all in what appeared to be good shape and the distances when measured between the two pair points, within the pairs themselves, checked good in terms of the inverse between the points (~0.01'). However, when I occupied one pair and located the other pair there was a difference in what I measured and what was published by 0.2', issues in terms of both distance and angles. Additionally, there were four benchmarks published, again, two on each side. When I ran a level loop through all four I found a difference of 0.08' between measured and published for the marks on the opposite side of the river from the marks I held.
My question is am I in the wrong by just reporting my findings to the contractor I am working for (who then passes my report along to the design engineer) without contacting the other surveyor first?
A couple of thoughts come to mind. First, I would contact the other surveyor, explain what I've found, and ask what and how he did. Datum, grid/ground, etc etc There's a very good possibility that you can figure this out and there really isn't a problem.
Next, I'd evaluate the situation and see if I could just deal with what I found and not bother others with what may be a trivial matter.
After that if I determined that things were critical I'd write the report to my client detailing everything I found.
The number one rule I teach when it comes to Ethical dilemmas is to first GET THE FACTS.
> My question is am I in the wrong by just reporting my findings to the contractor I am working for (who then passes my report along to the design engineer) without contacting the other surveyor first?
I wouldn't think so.
When I was involved (hired by the GC) in a lot of highway and bridge construction, it was SOP to check all the control referenced by the contract documents that were still in place. I believe it to be very professional to bring minor differences to the attention of my client and others.
If there is a large enough difference to affect alignment or quantities, it would then be the PM's call as to which control was used or ignored. In BM discrepancies I always made the PM (or the engineer) instruct me as to which one would be used. Correspondence worth its weight in gold at the end of the project.
I assume you do not have a contract with the engineers but do with the contractor. My first move would be to notify the contractor and then (with his concurrence) I would contact the engineer/surveyor. It may be a simple error, or something more complicated, but I would definitely put them on notice of the differences found.
Andy
Contact the other surveyor for two reasons. I would put "get the facts" as your professional duty, to figure out why you aren't matching, and second is ethics. You talk to the other party even if you think you have all the facts already as a matter of Professional Curtesy/Ethics.
Seeing his notes, and talking to him might help you determine if some movement has gone on or if one of you isn't using appropriate procedures to make your measurements. From my experience the guys who go off half-cocked and thinking they already know exactly what was wrong, end up with egg on their face more often than not. Communication. Always.
Many States require you to contact any (fellow) registrant on discovery of a discrepancy. It is a Professional and personal courtesy that I hold fast to.
I'm assuming this work is probably for a public entity?
I would expect that you would report your findings to the contractor, who would forward an RFI, either to the prime contractor, or directly to the resident engineer (whichever the case may be). The resident engineer, would then decide how to respond or where to forward the information.
With that said, I would contact the other surveyor before presenting your findings to the contractor. They may offer some additional control for you to check into that is not published on the plans. You only are allowed to be wrong once before all confidence is lost.
In any case, the contractor should be afforded the opportunity to notify the agency ASAP of any discrepancies you find. Most claims that arise because of discrepancies in the plans, are impacted by time sensitive notification requirements.
Appreciate the replies, already long out the door. Just wanted to get some thoughts for future reference from the older and more experienced heads. Contemplated grid v ground but that only accounts for a couple hundreths in the location, I don't think they could directly observe when the original survey occurred between the points I could as the area had been cleared for construction. We are only talking distances of 400' max so not sure what happened. Other surveyor was contacted after I sent my report, said it could be for many reasons but he didn't know why. Bridge is half built, all is well.
These are small projects, usually 25' spans or so on rural roads, maybe a couple hundred feet of road work. Really doesn't matter if the bridge gets built 3" from the design location so long as it works with itself.
> These are small projects, usually 25' spans or so on rural roads, maybe a couple hundred feet of road work. Really doesn't matter if the bridge gets built 3" from the design location so long as it works with itself.
That statement reflects common sense. However, when it comes to dealing with state and federal agencies, common sense goes out the window. At that point, other factors influence decisions, including politics.
.25' error can jeopardize project funding and it can result in large financial losses.
It just depends on who's attention it is brought to and which pots of money are involved.
Either Side Of What River?
Is all control in a single coordinate system, and was it pulled from a compilation?
Have you checked the control using various record datums?
You definitely want to talk to the record surveyor to verify how it was originally done. It may very well be right per the original RFP but not right enough for construction now.
Paul in PA
> Appreciate the replies, already long out the door. Just wanted to get some thoughts for future reference from the older and more experienced heads. Contemplated grid v ground but that only accounts for a couple hundreths in the location, I don't think they could directly observe when the original survey occurred between the points I could as the area had been cleared for construction. We are only talking distances of 400' max so not sure what happened. Other surveyor was contacted after I sent my report, said it could be for many reasons but he didn't know why. Bridge is half built, all is well.
>
> These are small projects, usually 25' spans or so on rural roads, maybe a couple hundred feet of road work. Really doesn't matter if the bridge gets built 3" from the design location so long as it works with itself.
In that context, I would pick two horizontal points, and a bench to hold, and go forth and stake. I would probably include my findings and decisions in an email, or even a field conversation with the contractor. The purpose would not be to impugn the work of the other surveyor, but to make sure everyone knew what I was doing.
If the contractor and owner do not care, I am not going to make a big deal of it. We are going to get it built. And if no one cares, the fact is that while less precise than we would expect (or want), the surveyor did the work to the needed accuracy.
Regarding ethics: IMHO, it matters how the information is presented. If you end your findings with the conclusion that all work by this surveyor is suspect, and you haven't even talked with them, that would be over the line. When I feel tempted to denigrate another surveyor, I remember that I am cutting down the whole profession. The non-surveyor public sees the PLS or RPLS label, and feels that is enough. It should be enough. If I feel that there is really shoddy work, there are appropriate ways to address those concerns.
I am interested if you could quote a statute for this in any state. I have not seen anything requiring contacting others about discrepancies. Just interested in the way these rules would be written.
Idaho administrative code 10.01.02.005.04 covers the process. It can be found on page 3 of our rules of professional responsibility. Not perfect but it is workable.
Thanks. That seems like a long process but at least you would probably get a response.
>
> In that context, I would pick two horizontal points, and a bench to hold, and go forth and stake. I would probably include my findings and decisions in an email, or even a field conversation with the contractor. The purpose would not be to impugn the work of the other surveyor, but to make sure everyone knew what I was doing.
>
>
This is what I did and have always done in these situations. As things get built I report the location of the footings and abutments and need to ensure we are all talking the same language.
>
> Regarding ethics: IMHO, it matters how the information is presented. If you end your findings with the conclusion that all work by this surveyor is suspect, and you haven't even talked with them, that would be over the line. When I feel tempted to denigrate another surveyor, I remember that I am cutting down the whole profession. The non-surveyor public sees the PLS or RPLS label, and feels that is enough. It should be enough. If I feel that there is really shoddy work, there are appropriate ways to address those concerns.
My report was concluded by stating that I was unsure what the cause of the discrepancies and recommending that the contractor seek guidance from the design engineer on how they would like to proceed in terms of what to hold. Don't think the work was bad, likely just a small error and we all make them. I was able to run a closed loop when I don't think it was possible for the original surveyor. In this case no one is particularly bothered.
> >
> > In that context, I would pick two horizontal points, and a bench to hold, and go forth and stake. I would probably include my findings and decisions in an email, or even a field conversation with the contractor. The purpose would not be to impugn the work of the other surveyor, but to make sure everyone knew what I was doing.
> >
> >
>
> This is what I did and have always done in these situations. As things get built I report the location of the footings and abutments and need to ensure we are all talking the same language.
>
>
> >
> > Regarding ethics: IMHO, it matters how the information is presented. If you end your findings with the conclusion that all work by this surveyor is suspect, and you haven't even talked with them, that would be over the line. When I feel tempted to denigrate another surveyor, I remember that I am cutting down the whole profession. The non-surveyor public sees the PLS or RPLS label, and feels that is enough. It should be enough. If I feel that there is really shoddy work, there are appropriate ways to address those concerns.
>
> My report was concluded by stating that I was unsure what the cause of the discrepancies and recommending that the contractor seek guidance from the design engineer on how they would like to proceed in terms of what to hold. Don't think the work was bad, likely just a small error and we all make them. I was able to run a closed loop when I don't think it was possible for the original surveyor. In this case no one is particularly bothered.
Then, no. I do not think that you are in the wrong.
